Live data from Hacker News

ai;dr

0xsid.com

11–20 of 313 posts

Re: ai;dr

#11
post #3

> specially documentation How we can tell that this wasn't written by an LLM.

I'm too poor for Claude Max 20x. Not that it needs that firepower but eh, there's no real way. As I mentioned, almost every single quirk can be willed away with a little bit of attention and effort.

At this point, I'm not sure whether you're a clawdbot running amok..

Re: ai;dr

#12
> I can't imaging writing code by myself again, specially documentation, tests and most scaffolding

Shouldn’t we bother to write these things?

Re: ai;dr

#13

"The less polished and coherent something is, the more value I assign to it." - maybe a bit of an overstatement ;)

This absolutely has been the case for me for the last few months. But what’s disheartening is that this signal will just be mimicked through simple prompting if too many people start tuning in to it. Or maybe that’s already happened?

Re: ai;dr

#14
post #6

I really like Oxide's take on AI for prose: https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0576 and how it breaks the "social contract" where usually it takes more effort to write than to read, and so you have a sense that it's worth it to read. So I get the frustration that "ai;dr" captures. On the other hand, I've also seen human writing incorrectly labeled AI. I wrote (using AI!) https://seeitwritten.com as a bit of an exp…

You could totally make a believable timing generation model from a few (hundreds) recordings of human writing. Detecting AI is hard...

Re: ai;dr

#16
post #5

I remember this was back in 2023, when ChatGPT had first launched, and I had a manager whose English was not very good. He started sending emails that felt like they were written by a copywriter. And the messaging was so hard to parse through because there's so much ChatGPT fluff around it. Very quickly we realized that what he was saying was usually in the middle somewhere, but we'd have to read through the intro an…

the solution is simple, ask ChatGPT to summarize it

a large part of the business models of these systems is going to consist of dealing with these systems... it's a wonderful scheme

Re: ai;dr

#17
post #5

I remember this was back in 2023, when ChatGPT had first launched, and I had a manager whose English was not very good. He started sending emails that felt like they were written by a copywriter. And the messaging was so hard to parse through because there's so much ChatGPT fluff around it. Very quickly we realized that what he was saying was usually in the middle somewhere, but we'd have to read through the intro an…

I have long believed that LLMs will herald a new corporate data transfer format, unlike most new formats that boast efficiency gains and compression, this new format will be incredibly wasteful and bloat transmission sizes.

I'll want to communicate something to my team. I'll write 4 bullet points, plug it into an LLM, which will produce a flowing, multi paragraph e-mail. I'll distribute it to my co-workers. They will each open the e-mail, see the size, and immediately plug it into an LLM asking it to make a 4 bullet summary of what I've sent. Somewhere off in the distance a lake will dry up.

Re: ai;dr

#18
> For me, writing is the most direct window into how someone thinks, perceives, and groks the world. Once you outsource that to an LLM, I'm not sure what we're even doing here. Why should I bother to read something someone else couldn't be bothered to write?

Because writing is a dirty, scratched window with liquid between the frames and an LLM can be the microfiber cloth and degreaser that makes it just a bit clearer.

Outsourcing thinking is bad. Using an LLM to assist in communicating thought is or at least can be good.

The real problem I think the author has here is that it can be difficult to tell the difference and therefore difficult to judge if it id worth your time. However, I think author/publisher reputation is a far better signal than looking for AI tells.

Re: ai;dr

#19

> AI-generated code feels like progress and efficiency, while AI-generated articles and posts feel low-effort I've noticed that attitude a lot. Everyone thinks their use of AI is perfectly justified while the others are generating slops. In gamedev it's especially prominent - artists think generating code is perfectly ok but get acute stress response when someone suggests generating art assets.

AI-generated code is meant for the machine, or for the author/prompter. AI-generated text is typically meant for other people. I think that makes a meaningful difference.

Re: ai;dr

#20

> I can't imaging writing code by myself again, specially documentation, tests and most scaffolding Shouldn’t we bother to write these things?

Documentation, maybe. Tests and scaffolding, no way. 99% of my time writing tests is figuring out how to make this particular React component testable. It's a waste of time. It's very easy to verify that a test is correct, making them the ideal thing to use AI for.
Post reply on HN